backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by IvanAndreevich.. on Jul 7 at 6:10 PM


How are you gentlemen!! All your free speech are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction... You have no chance to survive make your time.
Guilty verdict furthers copyright protection organizations dreams of banning free speech

The IFPI, RIAA, MPAA, and their international allies have led a crusade against copyright infringement over the last decade, which has seen record million dollar verdicts handed down against citizens for essentially petty theft.  Now, even as they continue their lawsuits, they eagerly await gaining new sets of legislated tools thanks to the lobbyist money they've been pouring into governments worldwide.  

We previously detailed how the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, set to be debated by the U.S. Congress later this year, currently contains a new crime called "imminent infringement", which is essentially copyright thoughtcrime.

Now courts in the Netherlands have added speechcrime to that list, essentially ruling that is illegal to even talk or write about piracy.  The case began last year when Dutch movie studio Eyeworks sued a Usenet community FTD for "making public" their film 
Komt een vrouw bij de dokter (A Woman At The Doctor).

Typically "making public" means you uploaded a file and shared it.  In some cases, the definition has been extended to posting links to infringed material.  However, in this case FTD's users neither posted copyrighted material nor links to it, they merely would "spot" locations of various films on Usenet and post them to the group (sans-links).

In May, in Dutch Federal court in the Hague FTD was handed a defeat.  The court issued an "ex parte injunction" banning the site's users from "spotting" under threat of punishment.

The FTD's lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet filed an objection (appeal) to the court order.  That objection was heard last week and FTD lost yet again when Dutch court essentially ruled a second time that free speech did not cover talking about or writing about piracy.

Speaking with 
TorrentFreak Engelfriet voiced his frustration, stating, "I am flabbergasted by the court’s reasoning.  It is established case law that publishing hyperlinks or torrents (Mininova, Pirate Bay) is *not* the same as a publication. FTD does less than what Mininova or Pirate Bay does, but according to the court we are more liable than they are?"

The Judge supported his decision citing a case in England involving a Usenet service called Newzbin.  Engelfriet describes, "They say that FTD is doing the same thing, and since the English courts held Newzbin liable for infringement, FTD must be liable too.  This completely ignores the technical differences between Newzbin and FTD. Newzbin is an NZB search engine through which you find codes to directly download from Usenet. FTD is a forum where people ’spot’ movies using messages in ordinary Dutch."

The FTD's unsuccessful defense was that it did not control the servers the material was hosted on and hand no control over potential downloaders and thus was not "making available".  The court said this was inconsequential and that guilt would be determined by establishing "whether the behavior of FTD allows users to download copyrighted files (in an easier manner) and thus makes such files available to the public."  And the court found they did.

Tim Kuik, director of Dutch copyright protection group BREIN cheered the decision, stating, "This is a collaboration between FTD and its users where they knowingly provide access to unauthorized files.  It’s clear that this is more than just talking about files like FTD wants people to believe."

Brein is suing the FTD in a second court case.  That case will go to court in October.  Kuik wants to see FTD shut down entirely and taken off the internet.

FTD may soon have a bit of vengeance, though.  Dutch elections are this week, and due to decisions like this one and the Sweden's multi-million dollar verdict against the owners of 
The Pirate Bay, the Pirate Party is picking up steam.  Writes a party spokesperson, "When reaching landmark decisions that overturn years of jurisprudence, neither the judge nor the issue is served when it turns out that the judge in question is in business with the copyright-lawyer from the party benefiting from this shocking verdict. The fact that this joint enterprise mainly offers courses on 'counter-piracy' at €900 per day, makes the situation appear even muddier still. If the Netherlands wants to avoid looking like a banana-republic where the law is for sale to the highest bidder, it is urgent that parliament takes control of the debate on copyright-reform, and brings it back into the public arena where this discussion belongs."

It has been established that the judge serving on 
The Pirate Bay case was a member of copyright organizations and may have financially benefited from the decision.  The Pirate Bay admins are currently appealing the case, hoping for a more unbiased day in court.  Despite the seemingly liberal nature of the Netherlands it has been leading the way in copyright enforcement, banningThe Pirate Bay and other sites entirely.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2010 9:09:15 AM , Rating: 5
Piracy is like piracy as piracy was piracy. Piracy is piracy and pirates pirate with piracy. Piracy of music is piracy and piracy. Piracy of movies is like piracy of music. Piracy of games is like pirating pirates. Piracy of rectums is like piracy of speech.

Come get me Netherlands. I just broke yer laws! Well, I'm waiting. Where's the indictment?




RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By SunAngel on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By Iaiken on 6/9/2010 10:11:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Isn't socialism grand?


I find that Ironic since the whole Anti-piracy push (and all the pressure resultant from it) that lead to this debacle originated in the "land of the free".

The US government wanted to keep the whole damned thing secret until it was enacted as law in all of the participating nations. Here in Canada, the request for information on it in wound up going all the way to the supreme court before it was finally OK'd. This lead to the Canadian governments backpedaling (much to the disappointment of the US) for almost a year after the public outcry.

So before you poopoo the Dutch, you might want to look at your own governments desire to be able to search, seize and destroy electronics at customs solely on the suspicion that it contains infringing materials. The US governments toadying to the RIAA and MPAA is where the impetus for this whole mess came from.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2010 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 5
While our own Government has not been innocent (when has it ever?), they can not bar our right to talk about things unless they amend our constitution to absolve the first amendment. In order to do that, they'd have to remove the second amendment also.

Good luck with that.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By reader1 on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
By Digimonkey on 6/9/2010 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 3
They can block whatever discussions they want if you're on their site. That in no way has to do with violating your freedom of speech.

If you wrote an article on a different site about how to block adds, and a site like The Tech Report sued you and won in a court of law, now that would be a violation of your freedom of speech.


By rcc on 6/9/2010 1:54:44 PM , Rating: 3
That's always been the case. Freedom of speech only guarantees that the government won't impede your right to say whatever absurb thing trips your trigger..... within limits.

However, if you stand in someone's house and expound on your opinion that his daughter is a slut.... he has the right to evict you.

Same with a web site. It's not public space, so they are free to put whatever restrictions they like on their forums, etc. If you don't like their restrictions, it's your right to take your custom elsewhere.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By AssBall on 6/9/2010 11:06:38 AM , Rating: 5
Well said Mr. Blastman. And I'm going to get auto-rated down, but I'll say it anyway.

Let any motherfucker in power that wants to even try to dick with either amendment just try it and and be a personal witness to the shit storm they induce. I'll take a free American redneck over a pushed over conforming Dutchman any day.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By Dorkyman on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By AssBall on 6/9/2010 12:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Your mother IS ashamed of me!


By quiksilvr on 6/9/2010 1:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
He was referring to the motherfucker comment, I think...


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By mcnabney on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
By Azure Sky on 6/9/2010 1:38:32 PM , Rating: 1
and this somehow suprises you?

most of these "revolutionists" are just big talkers who also believe that if its called the patriot act, it must be patriotic!!!

you know thats a big part of why alot of people voted for it, they just didnt have the time to read and understand the act, so rather then risk not getting re-elected due to people bringing up how UN-patriotic they are(because they didnt vote for it) they just caved in to bush admin and voted it into law.

Im sad to say I am american, our govt caters to the mpaa/riaa and anybody else who has the money to pay the right people off....

i just need to win the lotto and move to a nice island someplace where I wont have to deal with this crap :P


By Lazarus Dark on 6/9/2010 9:41:07 PM , Rating: 3
It was my understanding that the DMCA does limit free speech, in that it is illegal under the DMCA to actually discuss how to break copy-protection.

Or did I remember that wrong?


By wrekd on 6/9/2010 10:25:51 AM , Rating: 5
What? The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy.


By dtm4trix on 6/10/2010 3:40:46 AM , Rating: 3
As an American i totally agree with you on this. Our government is in the back pocket of big business. Our politicians are as corrupt as they come. It is big business and the top 2 percent of the richest people in this country who determine policy. And now with a recent supreme court ruling regarding election campaign contributions big business has solidified its hold over the government. No politician will dare oppose this for fear that the lobbyists will back the incumbent's challenger who may be willing to play ball. It's a sad state of affairs in this country today, with the left and the right, and those who think they are totally free are dead wrong.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By reader1 on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By themaster08 on 6/9/2010 10:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
money is more important than freedom.
Tell that to the poor souls working at the Foxconn plant making Apple products.

Some light reading for you, my friend (that is, of course, if your cloak of ignorance doesn't phase out the link):-
http://www.dailytech.com/Employees+at+Apples+Helli...


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By Donkeyshins on 6/10/2010 12:11:04 PM , Rating: 3
At the risk of agreeing with reader1, I don't believe he's espousing the belief that money is more important than freedom, but rather that in many ways, it is the current state of affairs in the US. Unfortunately in most cases, those that have the money make the laws.


By Donkeyshins on 6/10/2010 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the risk of agreeing with reader1, I don't believe he's espousing the belief that money is more important than freedom, but rather that in many ways, it is the current state of affairs in the US. Unfortunately in most cases, those that have the money make the laws.


Belay that...I just read some of reader1's comments down the page. I don't think he was being as insightful as I gave him credit for. My bad.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By Spivonious on 6/9/2010 10:20:40 AM , Rating: 4
What does socialism have to do with freedom of speech?

wikipedia-
quote:
Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.


By Kurz on 6/9/2010 2:53:23 PM , Rating: 4
The fact of the matter is Private citizens rights are not protected. Under USA and Capitalism (Though we have fallen from our graces) We are protected by the document that is the consitution.

Capitalism is all about protecting private property rights.
While Socialism is all about spreading the wealth.
Spreading resources. Seizing property for the good of the people.

Without Freedom, Property, its hard to have a successful society.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By raumkrieger on 6/9/2010 10:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not as long as I'm an American. We have freedom of speech here.


What is this freedom of speech you speak of? Last time I checked certain words still get censored and certain topics get you a visit from your friendly neighborhood Man in Black.

George Orwell accurately predicted the future. He was just a few decades off.


By The Raven on 6/9/2010 11:00:39 AM , Rating: 2
Though I see your point, there is always going to be a difference between censoring specific language which is deemed indecent and censoring ideas (like poitical speech, or speech about piracy for that matter). Yes, most people can't distinguish the difference between the 2 but courts of law should be able to.

But these US bashers are right about one thing. We gave up our some of our rights when we valued creativity and convenience OVER freedom.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By amanojaku on 6/9/2010 10:43:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not as long as I'm an American. We have freedom of speech here.
That logic is flawed because:

1) Your American citizenship won't protect you if you break the laws in another country
2) There is no such thing as free speech in the US; say "bomb" in an airport


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2010 10:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
Americans break the laws of foreign countries all day long here, within our borders. I don't see all of America being put in front of judges for all of these crimes. This is why we have our own country, our own laws and our own national borders here.

If we set foot within a foreign countries borders, however, then, if we commit a crime against their laws while in their country, it is a completely different story and their laws do in fact apply.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By zmatt on 6/9/10, Rating: 0
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2010 3:20:43 PM , Rating: 3
What are you talking about? I don't think you read my post and understood what I was saying.

At least, I hope so. I really hope you aren't implying our Government should try us for breaking other countries laws.


By The Raven on 6/9/2010 11:07:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
2) There is no such thing as free speech in the US; say "bomb" in an airport


That is way out of bounds bro.
That is like saying there is no food in my fridge because I can't eat the plastic that the turkey is in.

And look up the first amendment on wikipedia and you'll understand how bad that statement is. There are certain words that are protected for safety's sake. There are also words that are considered indecent. But you can feel free to use either of them in the privacy of your own home and in other places (like movie sets lol).


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By wiz220 on 6/9/2010 12:08:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Isn't socialism grand


Quit throwing around Fox News buzz words that you don't understand. This isn't socialism it's FACISM! The government is working for and with corporate interests. Even if much of Europe is socialist it doesn't mean that this particular case represents socialism.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By ninus3d on 6/9/2010 2:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Fox news was most likely thrown in because it has a lot of similar wordbuzzes and "logic" not to unsimmilar to what you said yourself.
I furthermore believe the freedom of speech is a policy of democracy and not capitalism so why do so many attack SOCIALISM when freedom are decreased?

I believe the ONLY "freedom" you loose in a socialistical influenced market is the taxation...
I have to pay taxes for the public services the government provides, private enterprise exists as a competition to the service provided by the government and my freedom as an individual is affected how?


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2010 3:25:09 PM , Rating: 1
I can clearly tell that the Europeans are becoming enraged at all the attacks towards Socialism when then they have to resort to nitpicking wikipedia entries in order to somehow try and separate their nations economies from the oppressive systems they have in place to impose upon their citizens freedoms. It makes me chuckle.

We might not be perfect here in America (we aren't) but I'd much rather have a free society protected by our constitution any day.

Oh, and by the way, the United States is not a democracy, if you want to nitpick. We are a Republic. True and pure democracies eventually lead towards oppressive practices in order to cater to all of its citizens whims.


By ninus3d on 6/9/2010 3:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't quite know what you refer to by the wikipedia quote thingie, however I dont really get enraged though you may not have directly refered to me on that one.
To me the different system are choices that either of has far from proven to be the best as of yet, they both have huge flaws.
I support a mixed market purely out of humanitarian reasons but regardless of a pure capitalistic or socialistic system, freedom of speech is not affected by it.
OTHER elements is what plays in for individual freedom and I'm getting a bit shocked that so many mixes that up.

I know, republic, i was throwing democracy more or less as a generalization there (I have to point out though, republic is a bit generalising word as well as there are a ton of ways to implement that, as well ;)


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By gamerk2 on 6/9/2010 4:12:43 PM , Rating: 1
What "opressive systems" are you refering to? I'd argue the US is far more oppressive; for instance, they don't have a situation where an insurance company says "Nope, we won't cover that".

The fact that you can make that statement is even funnier when you realize the US has been Socalist for well over a century now [Minimum wage, 40 hour work week, disability pay, etc. All mandated by the government].


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By MrBlastman on 6/10/2010 8:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
That is about the most ignorant statement I think I've heard you make in a while.

quote:
for instance, they don't have a situation where an insurance company says "Nope, we won't cover that".


You're right, they _do_ cover everything... eventually. IF you live long enough, you'll get medical care. Their system purposely makes certain patients wait extended periods of time hoping they'll die off so they don't have to provide medical service.

Here--they (the doctors and hospitals) have an obligation to help practically everyone if they need medical care. Eventually, those who can pay do pay for it one way or another (increased premiums or medical costs) but at least people get service.

quote:
US has been Socalist for well over a century now


It has? Since when? Lets see:

1. I can still own my own company.
2. I still file my own taxes every year to declare how much I owe.
3. I still can choose where I work and what career path I take.
4. I can choose whether I go to college or not and what to major in, regardless of my previous performance in school.

Hmm, those all sounds like the tenets of a free society and capitalism. Shall I name more?


By ninus3d on 6/10/2010 4:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has? Since when? Lets see: 1. I can still own my own company. 2. I still file my own taxes every year to declare how much I owe. 3. I still can choose where I work and what career path I take. 4. I can choose whether I go to college or not and what to major in, regardless of my previous performance in school.


The tenents of socialism don't prevent that either.
You CAN implement it that drastically but I cant see anyone who'd be interested in that these days, just as you COULD privatize police and firemen in a capitalistic model as well, but yet again no one is really interested in that.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By The Raven on 6/9/2010 4:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think what Mr. B was drawing from this is that with both Socialism and Fascism the individual's freedom is decreased significantly or eliminated altogether. (If you don't believe me just ask one of the 400K people who starved to death in 1892 tzarist Russia, the 15 million victims of the Holocaust, or the millions who were executed in mid-20th century China.)

My point is that though he is factually wrong, his defense of freedom is spot on.

quote:
I believe the ONLY "freedom" you loose in a socialistical influenced market is the taxation... I have to pay taxes for the public services the government provides, private enterprise exists as a competition to the service provided by the government and my freedom as an individual is affected how?


There is no 'private enterprise' in socialism. It all belongs to everyone. So the freedom you lose is is the freedom of choice that you mention. Why don't people get this? Socialism might be a great idea if we all thought alike as it aims for peak efficiency. But freedom gives us more innovation which can also create efficiencies. I don't know if I said that right, but I think you can catch my drift.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By erple2 on 6/9/2010 8:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no 'private enterprise' in socialism. It all belongs to everyone.


Wait a second. Are you confusing Socialism with Communism?


By kalak on 6/11/2010 8:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wait a second. Are you confusing Socialism with Communism?


Yes, He is.It's a common misunderstanding. From web:

Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.

Another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to limit that number to a smaller group.


By ninus3d on 6/10/2010 7:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, WHAT? :P
I live in country currently governed by social democracy and in this country I created and ran 2 companies that together provided me with "daily bread" for together 6 years!

quote:
There is no 'private enterprise' in socialism.

It was a government office that aided me for free in all i needed to know and do (in terms of documentation, filing, requirement for certain types of company forms like AS or limited responsibility etc, legal rights and requirements etc) because I couldnt afford a bussiness lawyer, and I even got a government sponsorship once I had proven that I had a product and a consept that would turn a profit...

Do you see how bizarre your suggestion gets here?
I can at best accept that socialism as a generalisation for the tens of different ways to use it has SOME WAYS you can implement it that limites certain freedoms, for example you can make it illegal to have private enterprise competing against state in certain areas like healthcare or education because for example you say that healthcare should be equal for everyone.
But I do by no means accept the so typical american generalisation that socialism = communism, they are VASTLY different.
I am lucky to live in one of the worlds richest country, its a very socialistic country called Norway, and although HIGHLY socialistic (free education, free healthcare, equality as a core, EVERYONE working or not has the right to income defended by LAW, EVERYONE is guarantered a high quality of life again by LAW) and based on polls less than 4% of the population supports communism.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By Ammohunt on 6/9/2010 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm weren't the Nazis the National Socialist party? Weren't they Facists as well? Do they even teach WWII anymore in school?.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By ninus3d on 6/9/2010 2:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, your comment...
It has an AWE INSPIRING logical fallacy :O


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By The Raven on 6/9/2010 4:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Without using 100% in his statements, it is not fallacy. But that is if you want to split hairs. Oh wait, you are.


By ninus3d on 6/9/2010 6:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
What??? REALLY?
You think its splitting hair to suggest that fascism and socialism dont go hand in hand as "proven" by the suggestion that since the nazigermany's political party was called the national socialist party and were practicing fascist policies, socialism and fascism is the same?

Whoa.


By ninus3d on 6/9/2010 6:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
And what the heck is this "100%" nonsense?
His claim was complete ludicrious and strongly uneducated and he further ridicule the argument by making a suggestion that his thoughts would have been proven under any education that incorporated ww2..
Its a fallacy of grose generalization and and a exceptionally dumb conclusion.


RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By jeff834 on 6/9/2010 5:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Socialism? Last I checked it's corporations that are pushing for all sorts of anti-piracy legislation. Sounds like capitalism to me.


By IvanAndreevich on 7/7/2010 6:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nooooo...

- Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through a planned economy; and profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses.

- Fascism, pronounced, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.


By Blessedman on 6/10/2010 7:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
I am curious, if a dutch citizen joins this conversation, even though this site is not hosted in dutch domain, can they be dragged to jail or fined?


By snyper256 on 6/10/2010 9:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
Wow.. the world is going insane.


Free Speech
By MojoMan on 6/9/2010 9:26:36 AM , Rating: 3
<political rant>Expect the infringements upon free speech to get worse. The globalists are not happy that the world is awake to their one world government plans, that their scam of climate change has become greatly weakened, and that the Euro is crashing too hard and too soon. The only thing left to do is take people's free speech away, and go to war.

I know... It seems like a leap, but I just see this as one small part to a much greater publicly announced plan. Look at the constant attacks on free speech (and especially the web) around the world. Can't have us slaves talking about things that matter and freely sharing information now can we?</political rant>

Bummer for these guys... Especially since the judge cited law in ANOTHER country!




RE: Free Speech
By reader1 on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2010 9:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm suprised your platform for existing has not been closed yet.


RE: Free Speech
By Varkyl on 6/9/2010 10:08:40 AM , Rating: 4
Obama is that you?


RE: Free Speech
By mcnabney on 6/9/2010 11:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't recognize Reader1 than you don't come to this board often enough.


RE: Free Speech
By Varkyl on 6/9/2010 12:44:04 PM , Rating: 4
No I do recognize his garbage but I am starting to wonder about who he really is. And that is why I asked the question.

That and it was a joke.


RE: Free Speech
By Camikazi on 6/9/2010 10:08:20 AM , Rating: 1
You know you should get a leg-up on everyone else... Go to your closed platform, pretend file sharing and talking of it is against the rules and disappear from here please.


RE: Free Speech
By Murloc on 6/9/2010 10:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
you can always hack closed platform and make them open.


RE: Free Speech
By reader1 on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By themaster08 on 6/9/2010 10:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
Do you ever shut up about closed platforms?


RE: Free Speech
By JediJeb on 6/9/2010 10:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
I can't decide if he is actually an Apple or MicroSoft fan, since both seem to have this mentality.


RE: Free Speech
By reader1 on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Free Speech
By The Raven on 6/9/2010 11:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hell, you can make your own platform. They can close them up and we can/will make new open ones. You can't stop freedom. Ever. You can screw with it, but you can't stop it permanently. People will eventually rise up if the costs are too high.


RE: Free Speech
By hughlle on 6/9/2010 11:05:01 AM , Rating: 1
when was that last time ANY locked, closed, restricted, tie-activated, younameit commercial software was not hacked wide open. i'd be interested to know if there is one, i doubt it.

it's been how many years and we havn't even managed to stomp out flesh and blood real pirates, they still run up and down the water taking boats and recieving huge ransoms, and they think they are going to be able to control everyone on the earth? hehehe, amusing, very amusing


RE: Free Speech
By corduroygt on 6/9/2010 1:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much anything tied to a server, as long as you don't hack the server, is locked.
Examples include xbox live, your cable box, the apple app store, etc. You'd have to hack the provider's servers for that.


RE: Free Speech
By Sonikku13 on 6/9/2010 10:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
That will only happen if there is censorship of the internet. And that infringes on our human rights. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." - Article 19 of the UDHR. This article guarantees freedom of expression. By your logic, reader1, you're agreeing to violate human rights by censoring the internet. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." - Article 30 of the UDHR. Unfortunately, you can't take away human rights from people, especially in first world countries. However, there is this thing called electronic civil disobedience. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin. The people who have decided not to let their human rights be taken away have turned to electronic civil disobedience. "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders.…The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip." - Ronald Reagan. The ease of information transmission due to the internet doesn't allow the repression of minority views - proxy servers can bypass internet censorship in China. Because of proxy servers - closed platforms will never completely (my definition is 100% market share) take over. There will always be a free, open alternative. There will always be file sharing networks.

And yes, I know I'm fighting a troll...


RE: Free Speech
By wiz220 on 6/9/2010 12:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that's a great mish-mash of tin-foil-hat crap!


RE: Free Speech
By Kurz on 6/9/2010 2:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
You wont be laughing when it actually happens.
Look at the finacial system.

Our Central banks don't care about the country they reside in. They only care for proprogating the continuing survival of the Central banks.


RE: Free Speech
By MojoMan on 6/10/2010 12:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
Kurz, you nailed it. It sounds too simple, but many of our problems can be traced back to central bankers, and their horrible lust for greed/power.

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson


RE: Free Speech
By MojoMan on 6/10/2010 12:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Wiz220... I don't have the hours it would take to educate you, but truly, you should get informed. This isn't tin hat crap. I can back everything up with main stream articles publications, etc... Here's just one example... The US military would DEFINITELY consider killing its own people to accomplish an agenda: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

It took me about 15 seconds to dig that up. My friend, the world is not what you think it is. It's not that hard to see anymore. I encourage you to dig in a little, and stop being afraid of the truth (as many people are).


RE: Free Speech
By Captain Orgazmo on 6/9/2010 3:07:31 PM , Rating: 3
Modern "Liberalism" (renamed from progressivism) is just fascism with a smiley face. The elitists want to control all aspects of your life from cradle to grave, hence the push for government health care, gun control, food control, media and internet control, etc.

As far as the dutch are concerned, they have already shown their contempt for free speech when they put Geert Wilders on trial for quoting the speeches of belligerent imams in that country.


RE: Free Speech
By ninus3d on 6/9/2010 3:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
Please educate yourself more on fascism, classical liberalism, modern liberalism, social liberalism, US progressivism, the history of universal healthcare and the policy and ideal behind it, as well as the ideology behind controlling "guns, food, media and internet" more if you want to continue to make statements about them cause right now youre just wordbuzzing fallacies.


RE: Free Speech
By Captain Orgazmo on 6/9/2010 9:45:46 PM , Rating: 3
Make a valid argument as to what I am wrong about or you're the one turdbuzzing phalluses.


RE: Free Speech
By MojoMan on 6/10/2010 12:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with the Captain here... Make a valid argument.


Google Suggest illegal?
By Lonyo on 6/9/2010 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 4
If I go to Google and type, for example, Iron Man 2, then Google lists up a search for Iron Man 2 Torrent, with no input from me relating to piracy or downloading it.

Surely Google is enticing me to click the torrent search option from which it will then direct me to websites which allow me to download the torrent (and then the film).

Google is pushing piracy on me and directing me to sources from where I can pirate a film even though I didn't want to know anything about it. It's far worse than this spotting site.




RE: Google Suggest illegal?
By Lonyo on 6/9/2010 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 3
(And I'm not talking about Google as a search engine for torrents, I'm talking about Google suggesting links to copyright infringing sites as part of its normal behaviour when I enter an otherwise innocuous term which has no links to piracy such as just the title of a film or game. Google through its suggest feature is pushing the infringing results)


RE: Google Suggest illegal?
By reader1 on 6/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Google Suggest illegal?
By mcnabney on 6/9/2010 11:31:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It isn't illegal, but it should be. Anyone distributing data publicly should be required by law to filter out illegal content. Today's politicians simply aren't tech-savvy enough to understand how to stop piracy and other crimes.

^
|
|
See that? That is a copyright infringement. I just took your creative content and copied it without your authorization and without referencing the original creator. I could paste your nonsense all over the Web and multiply my liability. Just because a creative work is offered for sale does not make it any more protected than what one braindead Bot like yourself posts on a tech board. This all leads to an assertion that copyright is like military power. You have as much of it as you can take from others.


RE: Google Suggest illegal?
By Donkeyshins on 6/10/2010 12:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
See that? That is a copyright infringement. I just took your creative content and copied it without your authorization and without referencing the original creator.


Actually, by using the quote function, you (indirectly) referenced the original creator. Also, I'm pretty sure this falls under the fair use clause.

Although I don't think much that reader1 spouts can be considered "intellectual" property.


RE: Google Suggest illegal?
By MojoMan on 6/10/2010 12:23:05 AM , Rating: 1
Lol... reader1's fascist lunacy knows no bounds... He's like... a broken record propaganda machine. Lol... Poor reader1. He's a masochist. Come... Let's all take pity on him.


Good Point
By wiz220 on 6/9/2010 12:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Jason makes a good point that I hadn't thought about before when he mentions that the piracy amounts to petty crime in most cases. A few of the people that have been sued for millions of dollars for having a handful of songs would have gotten punished far less if they had just stolen CD's and got caught for that, sure they might have a criminal record (probably a misdemeanor though), but monetarily it would be far less damaging. It really strengthens the idea that the amounts awarded to the RIAA etc. are just loony.




RE: Good Point
By Digimonkey on 6/9/2010 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well you got to keep in mind that most of the people that are caught with the pirated songs were sharing them, and that is how they up the dollar amount.

If a song was downloaded once by someone, the RIAA will say they could've sold the whole album to that person for $15. Multiply that by how many times the song was downloaded, then multiply that by the handful of songs and it quickly adds up.


RE: Good Point
By Solandri on 6/9/2010 2:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Fines for copyright violations are determined per infringed work, not per copy of said work.

And this is something many of us have been pointing out for years. The *AA have essentially been taking laws put on the books to combat wholesale commercial copyright infringement (people who make fake CDs and sell them on the street corner), and have been using those laws to bash people who are essentially doing nothing more than recording tapes off radio broadcasts in the old days.

While I agree with them that copying music/movies without paying for them is illegal, the fines we're seeing in court are completely disproportional to the crimes. It makes suing filesharers a more profitable business model than actually selling the songs/movies, which is totally backwards since the whole point of the penalties are to promote the selling of songs/movies.


speechcrime?!?!
By TSS on 6/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: speechcrime?!?!
By Captain Orgazmo on 6/9/2010 3:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wilders is on trial for speechcrime because he quoted the speeches of belligerent imams and the koran. What freedom?


RE: speechcrime?!?!
By TSS on 6/10/2010 9:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
The freedom to give the same person 24 seats in parliament, making him 3rd biggest in holland, behind labour and liberals. He's bigger now then the biggest party of the last 8 years, the Christian Democrats (who went from 41 to 21 seats). The pirate party didn't make the cut for a single seat by the way. But in our defence, their only stance was privacy, and had nothing on economics or immigration which where the 2 major topics for this election.

That case is controversial even here. The prosecution was urged not to go ahead with the case since that was a bad idea (for the reason you refer to), but they went ahead anyway. Which is pretty unique here. It's widely regarded as a move to silence him early on. Appearantly, it backfired.

Alot will depend now on how wilders handles this situation. If the others damn him to the opposition, next election he will get 40+ seats. If he governs, but lets us down, next election he'll get 5, and a new party that's yet to be made will get 20+. If he does OK, he should stabilize. Really he just represents the discontent of the dutch public with established parties.

The next few months here are going to be interesting, to say the least.


RE: speechcrime?!?!
By spookynutz on 6/9/2010 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 1
That is a shitty analogy, and only hurts whatever case your making. What if there was a forum created for the explicit purpose of informing copyright holders where illegal reproductions of their work are being distributed. Under the ruling, wouldn't they also be liable for infringement?

If you say to someone, "Don't go over there, that's a crack house", and they go buy crack there, it shouldn't make you an accomplice to drug trafficking.


RE: speechcrime?!?!
By gamerk2 on 6/9/2010 4:17:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Typically "making public" means you uploaded a file and shared it. In some cases, the definition has been extended to posting links to infringed material. However, in this case FTD's users neither posted copyrighted material nor links to it, they merely would "spot" locations of various films on Usenet and post them to the group (sans-links) .


Based on my reading, instead of posting the direct link to the copyrighted work, the users were posting the site that hosted the link. The proper analogy would be that instead of saying the stolen goods were stored at "East Warehouse - Room 202", they said "somewhere in the East Warehouse". I fail to see exactly where the speechcrime or thoughtcrime is anywhere in this article.


Piracy Club
By Spookster on 6/9/2010 10:54:30 AM , Rating: 4
The first rule about Piracy Club is, you don't talk about Piracy Club!




The bigger picture...
By mmntech on 6/9/2010 9:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
We've already established piracy is a petty crime. We already know that reports on monetary losses caused by it are grossly exaggerated and likely impossible to calculate. We already know that the majority of the general public don't think we need these stronger laws.

So what I want to know is why Western governments, regardless of political stripe, are so gung ho about it when there's bigger fish to fry. Even to the point of threatening civil liberties and inviting constitutional challenges.

I'm not going to make any accusations but I definitely would like to see our politicians audited, personally and professionally, for any shady activity.




RE: The bigger picture...
By MojoMan on 6/10/2010 12:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed! We should also audit the Federal Reserve while we're at it!


Proof
By dani31 on 6/9/2010 9:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
In my view this is the proof that they cannot in fact stop piracy.




How is it piracy anyway?
By Jaybus on 6/9/2010 2:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
The word piracy does not apply to posting links, the location of links, or even even making a movie or song available for public download on a web server. Piracy is a form of robbery. Piracy would be hijacking a ship or airplane that was carrying a shipment of DVDs. Making a copyrighted work available publicly is called copyright infringement, and is in no way piracy. I wish people would stop using the term piracy to describe copyright infringement. I guess it must make for a flashier title to an article.




Can't wait for the court case...
By FoxFour on 6/9/2010 5:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
... wherein a copyright holder sues someone for copyright infringement and is in turn charged with speechcrime for discussing copyright infringement in the filing.




Love the Pic Next to the Article
By clovell on 6/10/2010 10:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
Nice job on that one.




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki